I believe that if your gay, bisexual, transgender you should have the right to marry if you please. And there shouldn't be someone saying that if your gay you cant marry. I have alot of friends who are gay and now they don't want to get married and the complete bull man. Everybody should be able to love as they please and not get pushed around for that love.

Greetings, I would like to begin by thanking Breezy_Rae for accepting this debate.

I will be defending the contention that there are no compelling reasons for the state to legislate in favor of same-sex marriage. This is because heterosexual marriage provides a framework in which both procreation and child-rearing can take place. The state has a vested interest in protecting this relationship because it is essential to both the production of virtuous citizens and the continuation of society. Because neither are intrinsic to same-sex relationships, the state should not recognize them as marriages. I will be defending the following argument, as formulated by philosopher Jim Spiegel:

1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).

2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.

3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.

4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.

5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.

6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust.

Heterosexual marriage provides a framework under which future citizens can be raised and produced due to the fact that heterosexual union (The joining of a sperm/egg) is possible under this type of relationship. It is for this reason that the state confers legal and economic benefits upon married couples, for it recognizes that these notions are crucial for the maintenance of a healthy society. Thus, since procreation and child-rearing are essential to the advancement of society, the state has a vested interest in protecting a stable relationship under which this can take place. The state, therefore, ought to give special recognition to heterosexual unions, for they function as a precondition to a flourishing society. Relationships which do not have procreation as their core do not deserve such recognition, for they are not foundational to society. The recognition of homosexual unions as marriages would therefore be unjustly denying the special social value of heterosexual unions.

Is Marriage About Love?

Same-sex marriage advocates usually view marriage as a relationship between two parties which is centered around love. But this fails to understand what marriage is and why it is regulated by the state. Why is the state in the business of regulating marriage to begin with? After all, the state doesn't regulate friendships or other nonmarital romantic relationships. It's a peculiar thing, considering upon entry into a marriage relationship, a couple finds themselves bound by obligiations which decidedly nonromantic in nature.

The very reason the state has an interest in regulating marriage is because it recognizes that marriage is essential to the production of citizens and therefore the continuation of society. The state does not regulate nonmarital romantic relationships precisely because it has no compelling reason to do so.

This is not mitigated by the fact that procreation is possible from outside a marital framework. The difference between a marriage and say, a boyfriend/girlfriend having sex is that the former is a contractural agreement to the welfare of both partners and any children that may arise as a result of the relationship. The state does not regard the latter as a marriage because there are no contractural obligations involved. Since traditional marriage provides the environment necessary for both the production and raising of the state's future citizens, it should be afforded protection under the law. The fact that heterosexual sex is logically distinguishable from marriage by no means dampens this argument.

The Antimiscegenation Analogy

Opposition to same-sex marriage is sometimes compared to opposition to interracial marriage. However, the analogy falsely assumes that there is no essential difference between race and gender.

While race is irrelevant to procreation, gender most certainly isn’t. Race is irrelevant to whether or not procreation is possible, hence the state is unjustified in passing antimiscegenation legislation. However, since gender is relevant to whether or not procreation is possible, the state is justified in limiting marriages to only between members of the opposite sex. Therefore, the state has a principled reason to exclude couples from entering into marital relationships on the basis of their gender.

Artificial Reproduction: IVF/Surrogacy

One response offered by SSM advocates to the procreation argument is that homosexual couples are able to reproduce through artificial means such as IVF or surrogacy.

However, this fails to adequately respond to the argument. Homosexual couples are not actually "reproducing" when they engage in artificial reproductive treatments -- rather, they are using donated eggs/sperm from a third party. As such, the child that results from these artificial means of reproduction is not actually that of the homosexual couple. Rather, he was produced by means of heterosexual union via a third party. So what we actually see here is a reaffirmation of the special value of heterosexual union, since artificial means of reproduction are inherently heterosexual in nature.

Moreover, if couples should be allowed marriage rights due to the fact that procreation is possible due to third party intervention, then one cannot object to the marriage of incestious couples, who can reproduce by artificial means.

Are Sterile Couples Excluded?

It may be objected that such reasoning prevents sterile heterosexual couples from marrying due to the fact that they are unable to procreate. But this objection fails to understand the argument. Marriage is not based on the ability of the individual couple to procreate, but on a type of relationship in which procreation is inherently possible to begin with. Males are meant for coupling with females, even if it does not result in procreation all of the time. By contrast, homosexual relationships are such that procreation is impossible in principle. Thus, such relationships cannot qualify as marriages. What matters is thus that an act is procreative in type, not whether it is procreative in effect.

Marriage is a Social Construction

If marriage is a social construction, then there cannot be said that there are rights associated with it. This actually undercuts the proponent's own argument. If my opponent affirms that homosexuals have a basic right to marry each other, then they cannot view marriage as a social construction. This is because social constructions have no normative structure to them, they are simply constructs that may be redefined at one's own whim. One therefore cannot be unjust in denying homosexuals the "right" to marry.

Opening the Floodgates

If we divorce marriage from procreation, then what nonarbitrary reason does one have to limit marriage to being between two parties? Why not one person who loves himself, or three cohabiating roommates who love each other and want insurance benefits, or a business partner and his client, or three men and two women? Why even think that marriage must involve consent or must be between persons? Bereft of a solid foundation on which to base marriage, there are no limits to who can be married. Clearly this is counterintuitive. This reductio ad absurdum illustrates the fact that marriage must be based on more than just love or similar feelings.

It may all be fall on what is looked upon the society we live in today. But we as human being have not right to judge upon sexual orientation. Like years before with Racial matters we are going with the Sexual orientations. It shouldn't matter if negro, if we are white if we are Mexican or what ever we are. Love is love and hate is hate. Even if our society is dependant on child bearing. Even if they are gay or what ever they can always have children. Being heterosexual is somebody who is sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex and being gay is just being attracted to someone who is of the same sex. It may be economic for the married couples so they can bring more people into this world. But with the way our economy is who is saying we should bring more people into this world. We could always adopt kids who really need good homes. The study by Stanford sociologist Michael Rosenfeld says that children who are raised by the same sex parents are children have nearly the same educational achievement as children raised by married. So there is no difference between having parents who are straight between parents of the same sex.

Pro levies several counterarguments against my initial presentation. However, I pre-emptively responded to many of these in my initial argument. Additionally, Pro has not responded to my main argument. I thus extend that argument.

The Antimiscegenation (Interracial) Analogy

Opposition to same-sex marriage is sometimes compared to opposition to interracial marriage. However, the analogy falsely assumes that there is no essential difference between race and gender.

While race is irrelevant to procreation, gender most certainly isn’t. Race is irrelevant to whether or not procreation is possible, hence the state is unjustified in passing antimiscegenation legislation. However, since gender is relevant to whether or not procreation is possible, the state is justified in limiting marriages to only between members of the opposite sex. Therefore, the state has a principled reason to exclude couples from entering into marital relationships on the basis of their gender.

Economic Benefits?

Pro argues that same-sex couples should be married for their economic benefits. But this overlooks why the state is in the busines of granting economic benefits to couples to begin with. The very reason the state grants married couples economic benefits is because it wants to create an atmosphere that is conducive to the production and raising of its future citizens. As Adam Kolansinski writes:

"When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children." [1]

Same-Sex Parenting?

Pro's argument here is more or less irrelevant as a counter-argument. My argument against same-sex marriage is based on procreation, not parenting. Moreover, such studies are notorious for their lack of random sampling, small sample size, and lack of control for confounding variables.